Case Details

Citation(s)
2007 SLG 1440 2007 SLD 1440 2007 SCMR 1549
Supreme Court of Pakistan
Criminal Appeals Nos.498 and 499 of 2000,, decision dated: 25h April, 2007
SARDAR MUHAMMAD RAZA KHAN, CH. IJAZ AHMED AND HAMID ALI MIRZA, JJ
Malik Rab Nawaz Noon, Advocate Supreme Court for Appellants (in Criminal Appeal No. 498 of 2000) M. Javed Aziz Sindhu, Advocate Supreme Court for Appellants (in Criminal Appeal No. 499 of 2000) Muhammad Munir Peracha, Advocate Supreme Court and Ch. Akht

GHULAM MURTAZA and another

VS

MUHAMMAD AKRAM and others

Law:

Section:

(a) Penal Code (XLV of 1860)--- ----S. 302(b)---Constitution of Pakistan (1973), Art.185(3)---Enhancement of sentence, refusal of---Accused had served out the sentence of imprisonment for life awarded to him and his appeal had become infructuous---Prosecution had suppressed the injuries of the accused in the F.I.R.---Accused had given only one Chhuri injury to the deceased and did not repeat the same---Said factors had cumulatively made out a case for mitigation of sentence---No misreading or non-reading of evidence on a very substantial point resulting in miscarriage of justice, was available calling for interference by Supreme Court---Trial Court and High Court were justified to award life imprisonment to accused---Appeal was dismissed in circumstances. Muhammad Iqbal's case 1994 SCMR 1928; Ghulam Sikandar's case PLD 1985 SC 11; Ansar Ahmed Khan Bargi's case 1993 SCMR 1660; Muhammad Arshad's case PLD 1996 SC 122 and Muhammad Akram's case -1999 SCMR 52 ref. (b) Penal Code (XLV of 1860)--- ----S. 302(b)---Constitution of Pakistan (1973), Art.185(3)---Appeal against acquittal---Interference by Supreme Court---Principles---Presumption of innocence of the accused with the acquittal, becomes double, one that till found guilty he is innocent, and two that after his trial a Court below has confirmed the assumption of his innocence; unless all the grounds on which ,High Court had purported to acquit the accused were not supportable from the evidence on record, Supreme Court would be reluctant to interfere, even though upon the same evidence it may be tempted to come to a different conclusion; unless the conclusion recorded by a Court below was such that no reasonable person would conceivably reach the salve, Supreme Court would not interfere; unless the judgment of acquittal is perverse and the reasons therefor are artificial and ridiculous, Supreme Court would not interfere and Supreme Court would interfere in exceptional cases on overwhelming proof resulting in conclusive ,and irresistible conclusion, and that too with a view only to avoid grave miscarriage of justice and .for no other purpose. Muhammad Iqbal's case 1994 SCMR 1928 and. Ghulam Sikandar's case PLD…
🔒
Continue readingLogin or create an account to access the complete content.Login / Register

Deprecated: trim(): Passing null to parameter #1 ($string) of type string is deprecated in /home/digixyei/sldsystempk.com/view/master-layout/view_case.php on line 492